The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
OK, I'm missing something here. [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary precisely *why* is this the case?
It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler you use and that's enough. The GPL could have made distributing the compiler a requirement, but that would have so hampered free software as to make it useless, so the FSF didn't do that.
completely *ignores* the issue of a support API
I think that usually falls under the system software exception of the GPL. But tricks are played with this. For example, AdaCore releases their "public GPL" version of their Ada compiler with a runtime library licensed solely under the GPL, so any programs built with it that use the runtime can only be distributed as free software under the GPL. If you pay them for support, they give you a runtime library licensed under a GPL + program exception rule, which allows you to distribute it linked into non-free programs. (All of it is licensed under the GPL, so a paying customer is free to redistribute it to others, but I doubt any of them bother.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss